Defamation

Question 0

Monson v Tussauds

Answer 0

Libel - waxwork

Question 1

Reynolds v Times Newspapers

Answer 1

Shows the difficult balance between freedom of expression and right to privacy

Question 2

Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures

Answer 2

Libel - defamatory statement in a film is libel

Question 3

Defamation Act 1952,

Broadcasting Act 190

Answer 3

s16 -
s166 -
Defamatory statement in a broadcast to the public via radio or TV is libel

Question 4

Theatres Act 1968

Answer 4

s4 - defamatory statement in a public performance of a play is generally libel

Question 5

Webb v Beavan
Bloodworth v Gray
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Pictures
Jones v Jones

Answer 5

CL exceptions to slander having to have had special/actual damage

• Criminal offence punishable by imprisonment
• Disease which is contagious - no longer exception s14 DA 2013
• unchastity of women - REPEALED
• Disparaging people in trade, office, etc.

Question 6

Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers

Answer 6

Local authorities cannot sue for defamation as this would have an inhibiting effect on the freedom of expression

Question 7

Goldsmith v Bhoyrul

Answer 7

Political parties cannot sue either but individuals may bring actions per Lord Keith

Question 8

Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication & Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers

Answer 8

Trade unions cannot sue and cf s10 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act

Question 9

Sim v Stretch

Youssoupoff

Answer 9

Generally words are defamatory when they would tend to lower the C’s reputation in the estimation of ‘right-thinking’ members of society (Sim) or would tend to cause him to be shunned (Youssoupoff) – OBJECTIVE TEST

Question 10

Hartt v Newspaper Publishing

Answer 10

The ‘right thinking’ person is not unduly suspicious but can read between the lines - not avid for scandal

Question 11

Sim v Stretch

Youssoupoff (Interpretation of words)

Answer 11

Usually words are given their natural and ordinary meaning but sometimes this isn’t appropriate cf Y

Question 12

Berkoff v Burchill

Answer 12

A statement which exposes ridicule or contempt but does not allege misconduct e.g. calling someone ‘hideously ugly’ was said to be capable of being defamatory

Question 13

Charleston v Newsgroup Newspapers

Answer 13

The statement/photo/etc must be taken in the WHOLE context therefore a libellous image/statement can be balanced and rendered non-defamatory by a caption explaining or a generally balanced article

Question 14

Morgan v Oldham Press

Answer 14

The statement, etc. must refer to the C but not necessarily expressly, if the ordinary sensible person would believe it to be C then it is still defamatory

Question 15

Hulton v Jones

Answer 15

A work of fiction which refers to C, even under a different name, will be defamatory even if D did not know that he existed

Question 16

Newstead v London Express Newspapers

Answer 16

Even if an article is truthfully made about one person but it could also be read as another person then this will be defamatory - ‘unintentional defamation’ s4 1952

Question 17

Kuppfer v Express London Newspapers

Answer 17

Generally a defamatory statement against a class is not actionable

Question 18

Aspro Travel v Owners Abroad

Answer 18

Depending on the size/extravagance of the claim may be actionable against a class

Question 19

Huth v Huth

Answer 19

The defamatory statement must have been published to a third party, here there was an unsealed letter sent, which was opened by a butler, this was not published, it was not the butler’s business to read the letter

Question 20

Wennhak v Morgan

Answer 20

Making a statement to one’s own spouse is not published

Question 21

Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library

Answer 21

The Ds would normally have had the defence of “innocent publication” but here they had overlooked a circular requesting the book be withdrawn and had no method for checking books - Romer LJ states they must be innocent, had no reason to be aware of libel and no negligence

Question 22

Tolley v JS Fry & Sons

Answer 22

Innuendo - where the natural or ordinary meaning of the words are not in themselves defamatory but confined with extrinsic facts they are

Question 23

Cookson v Harewood

Answer 23

If the C consented either expressly or impliedly to the publication of the material then this will be a defence

Question 24

Alexander v North Eastern Railway

Answer 24

Justification - the D need only prove the truth of the 'sting' of the charge

Question 25

Wakley v Cooke and Healy

Answer 25

What is the 'substance' of the truth will depend on the context

Question 26

London Artists v Littler

Answer 26

Fair comment - defence to protect honest expressions of opinion which are not malicious, L Denning gave a wide interpretation -- NB this is ONLY for opinion, not assertions of verifiable fact, that is for justification

Question 27

Spiller v Joseph

Answer 27

Elucidated that it was not necessary (as L Nicholls had held) that the specific factual basis of the alleged defamatory comment need be shown for the defence of fair comment, merely in general

Question 28

Kelmsley v Foot

Answer 28

The opinion for which the defence is for must be based on true facts - must be clear what the factual basis is and that the comment is indeed an opinion and not a elaboration of fact

Question 29

Telnikoff v Matusevitah

Answer 29

The court must confine itself to the subject matter of the publication in order to ascertain whether there was factual basis -- the opinion must be honestly held even if it was not reasonable to hold such an opinion

Question 30

Thomas v Bradbury

Answer 30

If a fair comment can be proved to be malicious then the defence will be barred

Question 31

Daniels v Griffiths

Answer 31

Absolute privilege will be a defence even if malicious in the case of court proceedings, parliamentary proceedings, communications between officers of the state, e.g. -- NB the courts have been reluctant to extend absolute privilege to quasi- proceedings

Question 32

Horrocks v Lowe

Answer 32

Qualified privilege - must not be malicious but must be an honest belief (even if irrational) - in the pursuance of a social, moral or legal duty and the person to whom the statement is made has an interest in receiving that information -- NB 'political information' was not extended in Reynolds

Question 33

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Jameel v Wall Street Journal Flood v Times Newspapers

Answer 33

Despite declining to extend QP to general 'political information' in J the HL stated that the 'public interest' element should not be applied too cautiously -- journalists are under a professional duty to report but they must conduct 'responsible journalism' cf. Flood

Question 34

McKennitt v Ash

Answer 34

NB where there is a pre-existing obligation of confidence (i.e. a former friend who publishes private info) then there will be great weight given to this in upholding the D's right to privacy